‘Gender equality in the number of judges in England and Wales should be achieved by 2033 at the current rates of progress, according to Lady Hale, the president of the supreme court.’
The Guardian, 23rd November 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Despite there being a variety of reasons why someone may choose to represent themselves in the family courts – this decision isn’t an anomaly. Now only 20% of family court cases have both parties represented. It’s a trend we’ve seen grow in recent years.’
Family Law, 19th November 2019
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, has called on the courts to learn lessons from the tribunal service in improving the diversity of judges.’
Legal Futures, 12th November 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Expert witnesses who “fall short of the mark” face a “much more and properly robust” response from the courts, a recently retired Court of Appeal judge has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 11th November 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The UK Supreme Court’s judgment in Gilham demonstrates how human rights can be used to widen the class of individuals who benefit from employment rights (the “personal scope” of the rights). Further, the court’s reasoning evidences a shift away from contractual thinking in labour law.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 1st November 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The tribunal judiciary is not only representative of the British population but “arguably the most diverse judiciary in Europe and perhaps beyond”, the Senior President of Tribunals has said.’
Litigation Futures, 5th November 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Whistleblowing protection continues to expand and develop. Even without reliance on Art.10 ECHR the Courts have not been shy of adopting what might at first appear to be a strained construction of the legislation to further the underlying policy objectives. Now the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44 has demonstrated the strength of the interpretative obligation to construe the legislation in accordance with Article 10 (or that article read with A.14 ECHR). Indeed this points to the possibility of extending the scope of protection much further. Litigation over the position of secondees, applicants, volunteers and others, as well as in relation to detriment inflicted because of a perception (justified or not) that a worker has or may be about to make a disclosure, or was associated in some way with someone else’s disclosures, can be expected. These cases will need to explore the scope of the State’s positive obligation to protect freedom of expression. They will no doubt face arguments that the necessary reading down is against the grain, or contrary to fundamental features, of the statutory provisions.’
Littleton Chambers, 17th October 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In Gilham v MOJ the Supreme Court considered the novel question whether judges are workers for the purposes of the protection against whistle blowing detriment in the Employment Rights Act 1996.’
Old Square Chambers, 16th October 2019
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Joint article by The Hon Mr Justice Mostyn: Probability reasoning in judicial fact-finding.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 29th October 2019
Source: www.judiciary.uk
‘Has the court in Miller (No 2) done the very thing it said it wouldn’t do in Miller (No 1)? Has it given legal enforceability to the constitutional convention of ministerial accountability? Several authors appear to suggest that is has (here, here and here). Indeed, conventions were given rather peculiar judicial treatment in Miller (No 1) not least when placed against Miller (No 2), but also due to the general unenforceability of ‘statutory conventions’ (more here). But back to the apparent elevation of the convention of ministerial accountability (CoMA) to a constitutional principle – or what I refer to as the principle-isation of the convention.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The UK Supreme Court has unanimously granted an appeal by a district judge against the Court of Appeal’s decision that she did not qualify as a “worker” under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”), and therefore could not benefit from the whistleblowing protections it conferred.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th October 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Lady Hale has thrown her wig into the debate on whether the law, represented by the courts, is gaining power while politics in Parliament is losing it. She is not the first to critique Lord Sumption’s Reith Lectures, as they were covered at ALBA’s Annual Conference too (see Law Pod UK episodes 88, 89, and 91).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th October 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Ms Gilham appealed on all three grounds. She also appears to raise the distinct but related question whether she can bring her claim as a ‘Crown employee’ within the meaning of the ERA, s191.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Claire Gilham is a district judge. She claims that she was subjected to various detriments as a result of making complaints about her judicial workload and the poor management of the courts.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, has told expert witnesses that they can learn from the “impartial” way the court handled the Brexit case.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd October 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Jo Moore and Jon Metzer from 1 Crown Office Row about the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland.’
Law Pod UK, 27th September 2019
Source: audioboom.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024